Are we talking based on career or peak playing level? If were basing it on peak playing level, I think Krajicek gets the nod because he simply has so much firepower (although Stich certainly does not lack in that department).

Basing it off of career, Stich wins by a landslide (due to Krajicek's inability to stay healthy).

I saw Krajicek practicing at the US Open one year with Albert Costa. I could relate to Krajicek's strokes. Some of those guys you watch them hit, and their technique is on such a different level, the ball seems to be defying the laws of physics, they can put so much pace and action on the ball with so little effort. Something about Rickard K, his strokes seemed relatable, almost pedestrian. Obviously, they're not, but he hit relatively flat and his follow through was pretty classical.

Stich was more talented. Richard was probably more unstoppable at his best.

Stich. A better all-around player. Three Slam finals. Should have won the French. Even the year he retired, bum shoulder and all, he went to a fifth set in the Wimbledon semifinal before losing to Cedric Pioline.

Once Krajicek got injured it never seemed to stop and he never really found his top form apart from a couple of big runs at the slams - '98 Wimbledon and '00 US Open.

I like both players alot. I think you have to say Stich had the slightly better career though. Both potentially underachieved to some degree, though tough to have done alot more in the killer era they were both in. Stich's underachieving was mostly mental toughness, inconsistency, and desire though, while that was true of Richard to some extent in case it was mostly just horrible luck with health and injuries. Had Richard stayed healthy he might well have had the better career but it didnt happen for him.